Really? https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/data-and-results https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...asten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/
Stumbled across this story https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-contracts-as-company-accused-of-profiteering "Ministers have agreed a secrecy clause in any dispute with the drugs manufacturer Pfizer over Britain’s Covid vaccine supply. Large portions of the government’s contracts with the company over the supply of 189m vaccine doses have been redacted and any arbitration proceedings will be kept secret." This from the Lancet about vaccine and treatment inequalities is a worry. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00011-1/fulltext "Persisting inequities are slowing progress towards global and national targets for the control of HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. The same is true for the COVID-19 pandemic, with wealthier countries continuing to monopolise the global share of vaccines. Africa has been disproportionately affected by this vaccine nationalism."
This piece from the Reuters article do you mean? That's the FDA being ordered to speed up issuing the data, not Pfizer trying to hide it. "A federal judge in Texas on Thursday ordered the Food and Drug Administration to make public the data it relied on to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, imposing a dramatically accelerated schedule that should result in the release of all information within about eight months. That’s roughly 75 years and four months faster than the FDA said it could take to complete a Freedom of Information Act request by a group of doctors and scientists seeking an estimated 450,000 pages of material about the vaccine." That's the only reference I could find to 75 years. They're guilty of plenty in terms of profiteering and their reluctance to share the technical know-how on how to produce their vaccines with hopes that the expanded production could make them more accessible.
The judge had to order them to release it, as originally they tried to get it blocked. Someone filed a freedom of information act request to get this to happen. It had to be judge-ordered precisely because Pfizer were originally trying to hide it.
It was the FDA not Pfizer that the action was brought against in the article, precisely no mention of Pfizer withholding information for 75 years whatsoever. The only reference is in your post unless you have access to other information, feel free to share I'd love to see the dirt on the pharma companies.
Correction: not true. Note also that, for your "where's the data" talk, you're relying on a press release with no actual data. And one that was walked back! https://www.reuters.com/article/hea...ect-against-omicron-in-research-idUSL1N2UB0AV And this is the problem with the below: No, they won't. Fundamentally, this is the problem: people will believe nonsense that confirms their priors rather than adjusting their beliefs in the face of evidence. There is an incredible amount of data on ivermectin at this point, as there is hydroxychloroquine. Overwhelmingly, that data demonstrates that neither of them have a benefit for COVID patients. Most of that data is public available. You prefer to believe Joe Rogan. That's an issue.
And a follow-up. It turns out that this was not a clinical study at all. It showed an antiviral effect in a laboratory setting: in order words, they used ivermectin on a viral sample, not in a person, and it had an antiviral effect. This isn't a new finding, and in fact the misunderstanding of the difference between a laboratory setting and use in a person has been a major problem. There are a lot of things that will kill viruses in a lab, and it has been demonstrated that extremely high doses of ivermectin will absolutely kill COVID in those settings. The problem? Extremely high doses of ivermectin will also harm or kill humans. Same goes for bleach, and fire, and high-powered ultraviolet light, and a whole lot of other substances which are nasty to viruses because they are nasty to anything with RNA or DNA. But now that Joe Rogan, who knows sweet fk all about anything, has tweeted about it, it will further reinforce the already prevalent misinformation, and a bunch of people will die because they are taking useless horse paste instead of actually useful therapies. Edit: just in case you doubt what I'm saying about, here's the actual press release. So what we have here is: - Kowa issues a press release stating that ivermectin has antiviral effects in lab settings against Omicron (this has been true for every previous strain of COVID, as well). - Kowa states that clinical trials are underway (this has happened with every previous strain of COVID, and in clinical trials it has failed to demonstrate any therapeutic benefit at levels suitable for human ingestion). - A Reuters journo misreads the press release, and thinks that it says that ivermectin proved effective in the clinical trial. - 1000 right-wing commentators and Joe Rogan, who is not a right-wing commentator except for acting exactly like one 99% of the time, strip any nuance from it and blast it out. - Reuters issues a correction (edit: and Joe Rogan actually deleted the tweet after it was pointed out that it was false) but the damage is already long since done.
You may find this interesting. https://www.cochrane.org/news/ivermectin-cochranes-most-talked-about-review-so-far-ever-why And https://www.theguardian.com/culture...id-claims-what-does-the-science-actually-say?
It’s funny, a lot of people haven’t even listened to Rogan’s podcast, they just throw tantrums about whatever the media tells them. These conversations are all worth having. Those facts about the Japanese findings are interesting. It’s nice that at least one institution is being transparent with its findings
So, nothing about the fact that Joe Rogan blasted out something demonstrably false and then quietly deleted it without providing any correction, after it led a whole lot of people (including yourself) to believe something that simply isn't true?
Ah, it's the media's fault again. The media (again, who do you mean by that?) that I've seen have just reported what has been going on between Rogan (who has apologised and promised to improve, something I read in the...*checks notes*....media), Spotify (who have said they would change their policies), Young and Joni Mitchell. I've not read any media telling me what I should think about that. Just the reporting of what has happened. Which is what the media do.
Exactly! When he discovered it was wrong, he removed it. When have you ever seen a politician be so honest? This is why we are where we are. The guests he had on his podcasts, were doctors with a history of studying vaccines. I don’t think it’s a big leap that they may have points worth listening to, in their fields of study. I’m not sure why you think you know more than them, without listening to the podcast, without a history of studying medicine, and blindly trusting Reuters fact checkers. None of what you are saying is good grounds for book burning and cancelling people from podcasts. We live in a free society. Governments and left wing media should not have the ability to quell feee speech. The anger arising from people like you, just because a doctor went on a podcast, shows the true power of propaganda to me, not the people willing to listen. If platforms can be cancelled for one thing, eventually they can be cancelled for anything. This is why we see Trudeau label all 500k at the freedom convoy as racist. Because it puts the entire demo into a box and he can ignore it. When they have totally valid questions which need to be answered.
No, my problem is treating the former host of a game show about eating bugs, who routinely hosts the shining figures of the alt-right/alt-light movement, as if he's some sort of source of actual information. Rogan's ability to play the "I'm just a naive guy asking questions" shtick ran out about twenty incidences of him providing a megaphone for bullshit ago. He provides a megaphone for bullshit because there is a large audience for bullshit, and ye gods it's profitable. You talk about 'the media' as if a guy who earned hundreds of millions of dollars to market disinformation to his overwhelmingly male, overwhelmingly white audience, is somehow not the media. I hate to break it to you, but a guy carried on a bunch of platforms and with an audience in the millions is absolutely the media, even if he plays the "I'm letting you hear the voices 'they' don't want you to hear, and anyway while we're all being for free-thinking and railing against censorship, here's James Lindsay, the guy who literally wants to ban a huge swath of history from being taught it schools".
What is Rogan's podcast on Spotify if it's not media? Not just Reuters, not just ivermectin. The Guardian, BBC, Rolling stone. Washington Post CNBC et al debunking Rogan's various pieces of misinformation. plenty of links posted on this thread with verifiable sources to the controversial podcasts 'people like you' don't seem to accept, possibly not read. You assume no one has listened to Rogan but the quotes, short clips plus the reputation of the guests and his own statements are more than enough to make a reasoned judgement that they need highlighting as dangerous misinformation. Spotify appears to be changing policy. https://www.theguardian.com/technol...covid-information-after-joe-rogan-controversy "On Sunday, the CEO of Spotify, Daniel Ek, released an official statement setting out the streaming platform’s plan to tackle misinformation. New content advisories will direct listeners of any podcast that discusses coronavirus to a dedicated website that “provides easy access to data-driven facts, up-to-date information as shared by scientists, physicians, academics and public health authorities around the world, as well as links to trusted sources”. Not book burning or cancelling but access to facts.
As a regular listener of Rogan, I can see that you have fallen for the propaganda. He’s had a lot of pro-vaccine guests on there, treated them with respect and asked them questions. He had a couple of controversial guests - who were experts in their field - on, to discuss their views. All he did was ask questions. So if you’re asking me, who do I trust more when making health decisions - the guy that wants to foster debate; who tries to get to the truth of things in a transparent way, using data and publically available information Or A bunch of people that have no regards for free speech. Want to censor all forms of discussion. Label anyone that has seen - WITH THEIR OWN EYES - the negative effects these vaccines can have as “crazy” or “right wing” or “conspiracy theories”. I choose to listen to Rogan, every single time. The lying governments (and the media who are all in the lying governments pockets despite what you may think) have created this situation for themselves, by lying. And they can’t win anyone’s trust back by censoring.
Yeah whatever, just expect to have your views challenged, it's free speech to criticise those posting unfounded misinformation. "Label anyone that has seen - WITH THEIR OWN EYES - the negative effects these vaccines can have as “crazy” or “right wing” or “conspiracy theories”. "The lying governments (and the media who are all in the lying government's pockets despite what you may think) have created this situation for themselves, by lying. And they can’t win anyone’s trust back by censoring." Oh dear conspiraloonacy, go with Joe, he's not in the know.
I do expect to have views questioned. I enjoy it. I can’t understand why anyone would advocate for censoring free speech or forcing people to have vaccines, and nothing anyone says will change my mind that both of these things are abhorrent. Under two years ago that wasn’t a controversial thing to say.
As I mentioned on here earlier. SRL blocked me after he quoted a doctor interview on his Instagram page in a way that showed he was against vaccines and that vaccines didn't work, and I pointed out that in that same interview the doctor said the vaccines did work and he just didn't want to be forced to take a vaccine when he had antibodies from having an actual infection recently. Now he's free to keep spreading misinformation because he has censored alternative points of view. Both sides do this.
